ILNews

Opinions - June 11, 2010

June 11, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Today’s Opinions

Indiana Supreme Court posted no opinions before IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

Larz A. Elliott v. Rush Memorial Hospital, et al.
70A01-0911-CV-553
Civil. Affirms dismissal of Larz Elliott’s proposed medical malpractice complaint against Rush Memorial Hospital, Carrie Tressler, and Dr. Philip Kingma. Elliott had alleged battery and negligence with respect to the forced catheterization to retrieve a urine sample after a Rush County sheriff’s deputy transported him to Rush Memorial Hospital and represented a court order at the hospital to retrieve a blood sample and a urine sample. Finds trial court erred in concluding that the defendants enjoy complete statutory immunity from any civil liability related to his claims of battery and negligence, but also finds Elliot’s claims fall outside the parameters of the Medical Malpractice Act because he was not a “patient” of the defendants, and that his catheterization clearly was not for his own medical benefit.

Sam's East Inc. City of Greenwood Board of Zoning Appeals v. United Energy Corporation Inc. d/b/a Greenwood Sunoco
41A04-0909-CV-545
Civil. Affirms trial court’s reversal of the decision of the City of Greenwood Board of Zoning Appeals to issue a variance to Sam’s East Inc. to have a gas station near a Sam’s Club location in Greenwood. Since receiving approval for the gas station in 2005, Sam’s Club had encountered an environmental issue that delayed building plans, and the permit had expired before Sam’s constructed the gas station. After the permit expired, Sunoco built a gas station on property adjacent to Sam’s property. Shortly after, an ordinance was adopted that changed whether gas stations could be built in the area where Sam’s had previously received permission.

Cedar Mill Homeowners Association Inc. v. Patrick J. Bocian (NFP)
32A05-1001-SC-85
Civil. Affirms small claims court’s denial of Cedar Mill’s request for attorney’s fees.

Gregor W. King and Delores P. King v. Hamilton Southeastern Utilities Inc. (NFP)
29A05-0909-CV-527
Civil. Affirms amount of damages entered after a jury trial for the valuation of the Kings’ land affected by the acquisition of a temporary and permanent easement by eminent domain.

K.T. v. Review Board of the Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development (NFP)
93A02-0912-EX-1266
Civil. Affirms decision of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development Unemployment Insurance Review Board affirming the decision of the administrative law judge to dismiss K.T.’s appeal as untimely.

J.S. v. J.M. and M.M. (NFP)
75A03-0911-CV-535
Civil. Affirms trial court’s order granting visitation with J.S. (mother)’s minor daughter C.G.M. to her paternal grandparents J.M. and M.M..

A.E. a/k/a A.S v. B.S. (NFP)
80A02-0909-CV-905
Civil. Reverses and remands trial court’s order emancipating A.E. (mother) and B.S. (father)’s 19-year-old son K.S. Also reverses and remands determination of arrearages on child support; and apportionment of partial arrearage to K.S.

Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions before IL deadline.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  2. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  3. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  4. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  5. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

ADVERTISEMENT